Annihilation, Afterlife, Majesty &amp; Immaculate Conception

[quote author=“CanZen”]That being said I still believe that you are lying andonstop when you say: “Quoting just your conclusion was an effort at brevity,” because the part you left out is the part where the FACTS are inserted, and nowhere do you acknowledge that. In fact, you do just the opposite and completely ignore those FACTS just to enable the assertion of your own agenda. Then you go to another thread and quote the same “brevity” without any of the FACTS, but then you go one step farther in your explicit lie and claim that I have no facts to support my position so that makes my “belief” unfounded (or based on a kind of faith). You are still in all of your subsequent postings ignoring the FACTS. This has to stop andonstop. I will not respond to such outright deception again.

I am sorry you feel that way, CanZen. Obviously I cannot convince you otherwise. Please understand my “go to another thread” was simply the accident of a novice blogger/forumer trying to reply to multiple posts and ending up with a different thread. My response to the facts issue has already been posted on the other thread, “Have you even read the Bible?”

Would you say that a White person was begotten and a Black person was created?

Would you say that a Man was begotten and a Woman was created?

So, why is your comment that Jesus was begotten and Humans were created any different?

You can understand why Blacks resent being called inferior to Whites, and women being called inferior to men. But you completely fail to understand why Humans might resent being called inferior to your diety.

[quote author=“Joad”]You can understand why Blacks resent being called inferior to Whites, and women being called inferior to men. But you completely fail to understand why Humans might resent being called inferior to your diety.

I’m not sure, but I strongly doubt there is any society or human that has considered themselves inferior to any life form or another group’s diety. Usually the inferiority (or disdain) is projected upon another group. Perhaps that is another reason I don’t like the religious - they claim superiority first then move on to pity or contempt for others who don’t believe as they do, which is just as ridiculous as owners of Chevys scorning owners of Fords.

The stronger you cling to distinctions the stronger you build the prison walls around yourself.

[quote author=“Skipshot”][quote author=“Joad”]You can understand why Blacks resent being called inferior to Whites, and women being called inferior to men. But you completely fail to understand why Humans might resent being called inferior to your diety.

I’m not sure, but I strongly doubt there is any society or human that has considered themselves inferior to any life form or another group’s diety. Usually the inferiority (or disdain) is projected upon another group. Perhaps that is another reason I don’t like the religious - they claim superiority first then move on to pity or contempt for others who don’t believe as they do, which is just as ridiculous as owners of Chevys scorning owners of Fords.

The stronger you cling to distinctions the stronger you build the prison walls around yourself.

Very profound about the prison walls, Skipshot. I also think your comparisons regarding inferiority are very perceptive.

Please consider that in a true relationship with God, there is no subservience. If you are lucky enough to have a loving human father, could you not love him and do what is best for him without being inferior? One can choose to serve without being subservient. One can hold a deep, devoted, reverential love for God and humankind with an honest desire to serve both while standing majestically and honorably with head held high.

Service in its highest sense equals leadership in its purest form. The best way to convince people to treat others well is to demonstrate the majesty of the attitude of a desire to do good to others.

andonstop, I do not question your relationship with your diety, I question how that realtionship affects your perception of those who do not believe in your diety. I’ve seen piousness as thinly veiled arrogance.

Admittedly there are Christians who see further than what scripture tells them, and they see the commonality the major religions have - one truth, one center, the whole. But the small minded see distinctions which are used to divide men, and THAT is why I do not like any religion which makes distinctions of men. For example, the Episcopal church is tearing itself apart on the issue of homosexuality - a distinction of men. Muslims and Christians kill, discriminate, obstruct, lie, cheat, withhold aid and benefits, etc. over the proper interpretation of the Koran or Bible. And that’s just among themselves. Worse is reserved for infidels. How can arbitrary distinctions written and followed as objective distinctions be good?

Read Dr. Seuss’s story about the Star-Bellied Sneeches and you’ll understand my point.

Enjoyed Dr. Seuss’s Sneeches, Skipshot. Thanks for the recommendation. It would be good reading for any religious thinker. I’m guessing Mr. McBean also invented the radar gun and the radar detector.

I do not dispute your assessment of the divisiveness of much of Christianity. The saddest part to me is that so many choose to focus on petty things in direct conflict with one of their teachings—a house divided cannot stand. But I believe those so misdirected are the more vocal and more noticed minority. The silent majority quietly goes about their daily lives living as decent human beings.

You ask how I perceive those who do not believe in “my” deity. First, I see it as my relationship with the deity. I wish all people the best possible relationship with God. I do not expect people to limit their beliefs to mine.

All people are not equal on this world. Some are tall, some are bright, some are not. But all have the same eternal potentialities. We are all on different levels of spiritual evolutionary development, which makes us on different levels, not better or worse. Those interested in making the world a better place, whether they do it to live a more Godly life, or whether they do it to make the world a better place, make the world a better place.

In every mortal there exists a dual nature: the inheritance of animal tendencies and the high urge of spirit endowment. What someone says their faith is, is of little consequence. The truth of faith is in the living. To me, an accurate measure of faith is how people treat those from whom they have nothing to gain.

Often those who claim to have no faith, do; just not in the conventional organized religious definition. It is my humble opinion that anyone who appreciates Sneeches has a Godly level of faith. How do you see yours?

In every mortal there exists a dual nature: the inheritance of animal tendencies and the high urge of spirit endowment.

I disagree on both points though both say the same thing, essentially.

I am not looking for answers to why I am here, I know that already and seek no further information on this because I am happy with what I accept as fact. Spirituality is a religious state. I don’t like the word because people seem to use it to justify their beliefs in ghosts; spirits, if you will. It denotes a faith based attitude towards the real world and that doesn’t ring well in my ears.

Would you say that a White person was begotten and a Black person was created?

Would you say that a Man was begotten and a Woman was created?

So, why is your comment that Jesus was begotten and Humans were created any different?

You can understand why Blacks resent being called inferior to Whites, and women being called inferior to men. But you completely fail to understand why Humans might resent being called inferior to your diety.

What are you babbling about? The difference is in the context of the conversation. The context was about striving for a state of perfection. And, I was clearly speaking about MY beliefs. You extended that to some sort of personal affront. Not everything is about you. You can believe what you want, just please extend the same courtesy to me.

This kind of irrational and insecure sensitivity is exactly what makes fundamentalism such a problem, and it answers your final statement as to why people resent having their flaws pointed out. No one likes being told they are wrong. But here’s the thing; I never said anything about you - you took that upon yourself. Sounds like a guilty conscience to me. If you were truly secure in what you believed and who you are, why would you care one whit what I think about anything?

The room is full of people, so nobody knows to whom he is replying until he bites somebody’s head off.

Ted, you’re the closest to the Wookiee in the room. So consider your head bitten off. And don’t bring up strawmen. Don’t even start. I have registered a mark for describing the worst excesses of these sorts of arguments:

This kind of irrational and insecure sensitivity is exactly what makes fundamentalism such a problem

Accusing someone of fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron, if not a downright StrawHerring™.

The fact that you are here baiting atheists rather than somewhere else baiting fundamentalist theists amply demonstrates something about you that I cannot quite put into words. Bwaaahhhhrrrrrmmm!

In every mortal there exists a dual nature: the inheritance of animal tendencies and the high urge of spirit endowment.

I disagree on both points though both say the same thing, essentially.

I am not looking for answers to why I am here, I know that already and seek no further information on this because I am happy with what I accept as fact. Spirituality is a religious state. I don’t like the word because people seem to use it to justify their beliefs in ghosts; spirits, if you will. It denotes a faith based attitude towards the real world and that doesn’t ring well in my ears.

“You must understand that none of the gods are seekers after truth. They do not long for wisdom, because they are wise—and why should the wise be seeking the wisdom that is already theirs? Nor, for that matter, do the ignorant seek the truth or crave to be made wise. And indeed, what makes their case so hopeless is that, having neither beauty, nor goodness, nor intelligence, they are satisfied with what they are, and do not long for the virtues they have never missed.”

“Then tell me, Diotima, ...who are these seekers after truth, if they are neither the wise nor the ignorant?”

“Why a schoolboy… could have told you that…. They are those who come between the two, and one of them is Love.”
Symposium 204a,b

Ted, you’re the closest to the Wookiee in the room. So consider your head bitten off. And don’t bring up strawmen. Don’t even start. I have registered a mark for describing the worst excesses of these sorts of arguments:

This kind of irrational and insecure sensitivity is exactly what makes fundamentalism such a problem

Accusing someone of fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron, if not a downright StrawHerring™.

Really? How are atheists immune from fundamental thinking? Last time I checked, fundamentalism was the “strict adherence to ANY set of basic ideas or principles”. Its that strict adherence that produces the insecurity that keeps different views from being appreciated. Or perhaps there is a very basic definition of fundamentalism that you strictly adhere to here?

[quote author=“Ted”]How are atheists immune from fundamental thinking? Last time I checked, fundamentalism was the “strict adherence to ANY set of basic ideas or principles”. Its that strict adherence that produces the insecurity that keeps different views from being appreciated. Or perhaps there is a very basic definition of fundamentalism that you strictly adhere to here?

Fundamentalist fundamentalism restricts one to the interpretation of a particular text. That’s not an atheist-derived definition, but a theist-derived one. If any word ought to have a specific definition, and one which believers should own, and own up to, this might be the one. Perhaps you would care to characterize the text that offers the source of the basic ideas or principles to which “fundamentalist” atheists are “adhering”.

But you may wish to go along as you do, defining words in such a way that the definitions constitute your arguments. By the way, as you burn your own StrawHerring™, keep in mind that while it casts a lovely brownish light, also creates a terrific stink.

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“Ted”]How are atheists immune from fundamental thinking? Last time I checked, fundamentalism was the “strict adherence to ANY set of basic ideas or principles”. Its that strict adherence that produces the insecurity that keeps different views from being appreciated. Or perhaps there is a very basic definition of fundamentalism that you strictly adhere to here?

Fundamentalist fundamentalism restricts one to the interpretation of a particular text. That’s not an atheist-derived definition, but a theist-derived one. If any word ought to have a specific definition, and one which believers should own, and own up to, this might be the one. Perhaps you would care to characterize the text that offers the source of the basic ideas or principles to which “fundamentalist” atheists are “adhering”.

But you may wish to go along as you do, defining words in such a way that the definitions constitute your arguments. By the way, as you burn your own StrawHerring™, keep in mind that while it casts a lovely brownish light, also creates a terrific stink.

Oohhh, “fundamentalist fundamentalism”. I see, now. How dopey of me.

The fundamental thinking I was referring to is what appears to be blocking some atheists here from engaging in a meaningful discussion about anything that smacks of having theistic connections. An idea, regardless of its source, can be either good or bad (or so i’ve been told by the wisest folks out here). But so blinded are some people by their hatred and distaste for theism, they cannot seem to get past that. Sounds like cognitive dissonance created by strict adherence to a basic set of rules (godhead bad, me good).

Joad has had a partiicularly difficult time getting his head around concepts that sound remotely theistic, “It is the basic reason I detest Theism. It is far less a love of a god than a hatred of humanity.” He cannot possibly imagine any good coming from a theistic concept, even a concept like constantly striving for perfection (or at least bettering oneself). Its the same fundamental thinking that prevents some Christians to get their heads around the concept of real and meaningful love between two people of the same sex.

So, don’t pull this holier than thou, sorry, unholier and perfecter than thou attitude. “I’m an atheist, that makes me above any prejudicial or fundamental thinking. I have the most open and rational mind, cause theres no god telling me what to think. only wookies.”

I just want to make a comment on the idea that there are fundamentalist atheists. I really don’t see how rejecting certain ideas or dogmatic texts can make a person fundamentalist? What most atheists are doing is getting rid of beliefs that have no evidential justification, in that sense they are returning to a cognitive purity in which they originally came to be as conscious beings. I’m not saying that they are returning to the state of a new born baby, but rather after careful examination of their religious (theistic) indoctrination they realize that these beliefs (in a deity) are unfounded. And they have tons of evidence that proves this unfoundedness. They don’t have any proof that god doesn’t exist, but there is plenty of evidence that acceptable alternatives to a belief in a deity can account for this cognitive delusion. They thus return to a state of purity, by rejecting beliefs that require faith, they are not fundamentalists. Unless you see them as fundamental in their purity . . . but that’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned.

[quote author=“CanZen”]I just want to make a comment on the idea that there are fundamentalist atheists. I really don’t see how rejecting certain ideas or dogmatic texts can make a person fundamentalist? What most atheists are doing is getting rid of beliefs that have no evidential justification, in that sense they are returning to a cognitive purity in which they originally came to be as conscious beings. I’m not saying that they are returning to the state of a new born baby, but rather after careful examination of their religious (theistic) indoctrination they realize that these beliefs (in a deity) are unfounded. And they have tons of evidence that proves this unfoundedness. They don’t have any proof that god doesn’t exist, but there is plenty of evidence that acceptable alternatives to a belief in a deity can account for this cognitive delusion. They thus return to a state of purity, by rejecting beliefs that require faith, they are not fundamentalists. Unless you see them as fundamental in their purity . . . but that’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned.
Bob

But there can be atheists who are dogmatic about their rejection of religious belief. You can tell them by their reaction to religious types—their ranting as it were.